Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court has upheld the constitutionality of the country’s anti-terrorism legislation, ruling that the criminalization of terrorism in all its forms is a constitutional duty aligned with Egypt’s international obligations and does not infringe on judicial independence or the administration of justice.
In a decision issued on Saturday and headed by Chief Justice Boulos Fahmy, the court dismissed a lawsuit challenging several provisions of the Penal Code and the 2015 Anti-Terrorism Law. The challenge had focused on articles defining terrorism, terrorist entities, and terrorist acts, arguing that they violated constitutional guarantees, including the separation of powers and judicial discretion.
The court ruled that Egypt’s accession to and ratification of multiple international conventions on combating terrorism obligate the state to harmonize its domestic legislation with those commitments. Among the agreements cited were the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and the Arab Convention on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing.
These conventions, the court said, aim to protect public security and order for citizens and residents while addressing terrorism in all its manifestations and cutting off its sources of financing. The ruling emphasized that such obligations are consistent with constitutional provisions that seek to balance national security with the protection of rights and freedoms.
According to the court, the Anti-Terrorism Law does not repeal or undermine existing Penal Code provisions but instead complements them, forming an integrated legal framework consistent with international standards. The court cited a 1994 United Nations General Assembly resolution affirming that criminal acts intended to spread terror among the public for political or ideological purposes cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The ruling stated that the contested provisions clearly and precisely define terrorism, terrorist organizations, and terrorist crimes. It said the legal framework centers on the use of force, violence, threats, or intimidation by unlawful entities with the aim of undermining public order, endangering societal security, or harming state interests.
The court found that criminalizing such acts serves a pressing social need, including protecting constitutional institutions, public facilities, national resources, and civilians from violence and intimidation. It concluded that the provisions target specific actions that cause actual harm or pose tangible risks, without encroaching on constitutionally protected rights or freedoms.
Addressing concerns over judicial independence, the court ruled that the penalties prescribed under the challenged articles are proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes and do not strip judges of their discretion. Judges, the court said, retain the authority to determine appropriate sentences within the limits set by law, ensuring compliance with constitutional guarantees.
The court ultimately concluded that the challenged provisions meet constitutional standards governing criminal punishment and the rule of law, rejecting claims that they violate personal liberty, judicial independence, or broader constitutional principles.
